Posted on 01/28/2015 1:23:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
Over the past few weeks, I have received no less than three inquiries regarding the early church’s celebration of the Lord’s Table and its implications for the evangelical church today. Two of these inquiries have come from Roman Catholics, each of whom has suggested that the Roman Catholic practice of transubstantiation best represents the way the Lord’s Table was observed in the first few centuries of church history.
Over the past few weeks, I have received no less than three inquiries regarding the early church’s celebration of the Lord’s Table and its implications for the evangelical church today. Two of these inquiries have come from Roman Catholics, each of whom has suggested that the Roman Catholic practice of transubstantiation best represents the way the Lord’s Table was observed in the first few centuries of church history.
This two-part post is intended to provide an initial response to such assertions.
The word “eucharist” means “thanksgiving” and was an early Christian way of referring to the celebration of the Lord’s Table. Believers in the early centuries of church history regularly celebrated the Lord’s Table as a way to commemorate the death of Christ. The Lord Himself commanded this observance on the night before His death. As the apostle Paul recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:23–26:
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
In discussing the Lord’s Table from the perspective of church history, at least two important questions arise. First, did the early church believe that the elements (the bread and the cup) were actually and literally transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ? In other words, did they articulate the doctrine of transubstantiation as modern Roman Catholics do? Second, did early Christians view the eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice? Or put another way, did they view it in the terms articulated by the sixteenth-century Council of Trent?
In today’s post, we will address the first of those two questions.
Did the Early Church Fathers Hold to Transubstantiation?
Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic teaching that in the eucharist, the bread and the cup are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Here are several quotes from the church fathers, often cited by Roman Catholics, in defense of their claim that the early church embraced transubstantiation.
Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 110): “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).
Irenaeus (d. 202): “He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood” (Against Heresies, 4:17:5).
Irenaeus again: “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies, 5:2).
Tertullian (160–225): “[T]he flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead).
Origen (182–254): “Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’” (Homilies on Numbers, 7:2).
Augustine (354–430): “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227).
How should we think about such statements?
Obviously, there is no disputing the fact that the patristic authors made statements like, “The bread is the body of Christ” and “The cup is the blood of Christ.” But there is a question of exactly what they meant when they used that language. After all, the Lord Himself said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” So it is not surprising that the early fathers echoed those very words.
But what did they mean when they used the language of Christ to describe the Lord’s Table? Did they intend the elements to be viewed as Christ’s literal flesh and blood? Or did they see the elements as symbols and figures of those physical realities?
In answering such questions, at least two things ought to be kept in mind:
* * * * *
1. We ought to interpret the church fathers’ statements within their historical context.
Such is especially true with regard to the quotes cited above from Ignatius and Irenaeus. During their ministries, both men found themselves contending against the theological error of docetism (a component of Gnostic teaching), which taught that all matter was evil. Consequently, docetism denied that Jesus possessed a real physical body. It was against this false teaching that the apostle John declared, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7).
In order to combat the false notions of docetism, Ignatius and Irenaeus echoed the language Christ used at the Last Supper (paraphrasing His words, “This is My body” and “This is My blood”). Such provided a highly effective argument against docetic heresies, since our Lord’s words underscore the fact that He possessed a real, physical body.
A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) used the same arguments against the Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:
“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).
Tertullian’s explanation could not be clearer. On the one hand, he based his argument against Gnostic docetism on the words of Christ, “This is My body.” On the other hand, Tertullian recognized that the elements themselves ought to be understood as symbols which represent the reality of Christ’s physical body. Because of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of docetic error.
Based on Tertullian’s explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and Irenaeus in that same light.
* * * * *
2. We ought to allow the church fathers to clarify their understanding of the Lord’s Table.
We have already seen how Tertullian clarified his understanding of the Lord’s Table by noting that the bread and the cup were symbols of Christ’s body and blood. In that same vein, we find that many of the church fathers similarly clarified their understanding of the eucharist by describing it in symbolic and spiritual terms.
At times, they echoed the language of Christ (e.g. “This is My body” and “This is My blood”) when describing the Lord’s Table. Yet, in other places, it becomes clear that they intended this language to be ultimately understood in spiritual and symbolic terms. Here are a number of examples that demonstrate this point:
The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord’s Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.
Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood“(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).
Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).
Cyprian (200–258), who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7).
Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:
For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).
Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)
Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).
He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).
And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).
A number of similar quotations from the church fathers could be given to make the point that—at least for many of the fathers—the elements of the eucharist were ultimately understood in symbolic or spiritual terms. In other words, they did not hold to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
To be sure, they often reiterated the language of Christ when He said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” They especially used such language in defending the reality of His incarnation against Gnostic, docetic heretics who denied the reality of Christ’s physical body.
At the same time, however, they clarified their understanding of the Lord’s Table by further explaining that they ultimately recognized the elements of the Lord’s Table to be symbols—figures which represented and commemorated the physical reality of our Lord’s body and blood.
Next week, in part 2, we will consider whether or not the church fathers regarded the Lord’s Table as a propiatory sacrifice (as the Council of Trent defines it) or as simply a memorial offering of thanksgiving.
According to Christian belief, the Old Law ended the moment Jesus died. The Ten Commandments and the Two Great Commandments are forever, but the Mosaic ritual law ceased to operate when that which it prefigured had come to pass.
In other words, although Jesus made abundantly clear throughout his public life that FAITH is decisive in our relationship with God, he stupidly confused the issue—which was ALREADY perfectly clear—by introducing a lot of GRAPHIC language about “gnawing,” “chewing,” and “munching” on his flesh, and drinking his blood.
Oh, yes. “Gnawing,” “chewing,” and “munching” on flesh are such obvious metaphors that ANYBODY would think of as a way of talking about “believing.”
Yeah. When I read the weather report in the morning, I always “munch” on it, “chew” on it, and “gnaw” on it.
Yeah. “This is my body, which is given up for you...This is the chalice of my blood...” Right. ANYBODY would interpret those words to mean, “believe.”
No, the Prophet is not quoted there - that is indeed commentary by the author. The prophet in question is Jeremiah in 31:31. Note the context of the chapter. And note that the time Jeremiah proclaims includes Torah written on the inward parts of all men (that certainly is *not*, even to this day)- and certainly not thrown away as being old.
It was GONE when the veil in the temple was torn open.
Not ONE jot or tittle until all is fulfilled. Not only Torah, but the Prophets.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.
The Torah is not completely fulfilled. The Prophets are not completely fulfilled. Heaven and earth are still here.
That is not what the Bible says. And Torah is indivisible - not added to, nor taken from.
Before the crucifixion was still OT where eating blood was still a sin.
Additionally, the HOLY SPIRIT saw fit to reiterate the command against eating blood in the NT AFTER the day of Pentecost, well into the church age.
No matter how you try to spin it, *Don’t eat blood* means *Don’t eat blood*.
But I don’t expect Catholics to actually OBEY the clear direct commands of Jesus in the matter. They don’t with other issues, but instead rationalize their disobedience away.
Why is it that we cannot seem to realize that the Jews were GOD's chosen [people????
The laws, ANY of them, were given to THEM!!
Why do GENTILES get their panties in a wad about LAW???
I agree we must walk in the Spirit and believe the LORD Jesus Christ. The natural man does not understand the things revealed by the Spirit of the LORD; it appears as foolishness, such as arguing that Catholics, assuming the Catholic teaching is true, when receiving the Eucharist are violating the Torah, or Jesus violated the Torah in giving the teaching. Those points are akin to what the natural Jews in the text argued, and stumbled over.
When I read this I cannot help but think of a rotund pastor (not you) edifying his pious flock by preaching to them the error of the Jews grasping for bread, and then the emaciated figures of starving Jews and Gentiles enters my mind. Then I remember Jesus gave them "real food" and James tells us If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
, James, catholic chapter two, Protestant verses fifteen and sixteen, as authorized by King James.
As for the religious among us in the States, is there an epidemic sun of gluttony ? How often do we hear homilies or sermons about gluttony and obesity ? How often do we restrain ourselves by fasting ?
Firm Faith, Fat Body? Study Finds High Rate of Obesity among Religious
Huh boy!!! The law was NOT fulfilled until the perfect sacrifice had been completed. There was no new covenant until Christ died on that cross. The "blood of the new covenant could NOT have been real blood because Jesus blood was spilled on the ground. There is no blood in the risen body. God is the life in the risen body. Blood was the life in the corrupt body. After the resurrection Christ said "flesh and bone" but not blood.
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
There was no blood as we see when Jesus told Thomas to put his fingers in the holes in His hands and his hand into His side.
John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
No blood flowing from those wounds. It had all been spilled on the ground as was required for any sacrifice as well as any animal slaughtered for food.
It still would have been a sin to eat the blood.
The counsel of Jerusalem reinforced the prohibition against eating ANY blood.
The Mosaic Law was not fulfilled until the Lamb was sacrificed and His Blood was spilled - on the Cross. As Jesus said, it would not pass away until "every jot and tittle" was fulfilled. So at the Last Supper, the Law was still in effect. No matter what word games you try to play, the words of Jesus make this clear.
No matter how hard you try to twist things, you cannot change the fact that at the time of the Last Supper, the Mosaic Law was still in effect, and the consuming of blood was a sin. So for your interpretation to be correct, Jesus would have been telling His disciples to commit a sin - which would have negated His ability to be a sinless sacrifice for OUR sins.
Ahh, but we are grafted unto Israel - and everyone knows there is only one law in Israel. From the least to the greatest, Torah.
If you love me, keep my commandments.
Jesus said: “Take this and drink. This is the chalice of my blood.”
It’s right there in the gospels.
According to you, Jesus WAS a sinner. He is convicted by HIS OWN WORDS.
Of course, perhaps the gospel writers were lying.
So, you have left yourself exactly two choices:
A) Jesus was a sinner;
B) The gospel accounts are lies.
According to you, drinking blood was a sin.
Jesus SAID, “Take this and drink; this is the chalice of my blood...”
Fine. Let us suppose that Jesus wasn’t telling the apostles to drink his ACTUAL blood.
That means that Jesus was telling the apostles to do something that SYMBOLIZED drinking his blood. Right?
That would mean Jesus would be okay with committing adultery SYMBOLICALLY, or committing murder SYMBOLICALLY, or worshiping idols SYMBOLICALLY.
Show me an example elsewhere in the gospels where Jesus instructs the apostles to SIN SYMBOLICALLY.
According to you, at the time of the Last Supper, drinking blood was still a sin.
Therefore, Jesus could not have given his REAL blood to drink, because that would be a sin.
So, when Jesus SAID, “Take this and drink; this is the chalice of my blood in the new covenant...”—He was instructing the apostles to do something that SYMBOLIZED the commission of a sin.
Tell me where in the gospel Jesus said it was okay to commit adultery SYMBOLICALLY. Show me where in the gospel Jesus said it’s okay to worship idols SYMBOLICALLY. Show me where Jesus said it was okay to lie SYMBOLICALLY.
A) Jesus was a sinner;
B) The gospel accounts are lies.
No, those are the choices you have left yourself. (And by the way, rewording the Scripture to make it appear to support your position doesn't work.) The commonly accepted and Scripturally sound choice is the one most here are propounding - that the cup and the bread represent the blood and flesh of Christ, just as the unleavened bread represented the haste with with they Jews departed Egypt, and the bitter herbs that were used to cook the Passover Lamb represented the bitterness of the life the Jews led in Egypt. It is only when you try to make it the literal blood and flesh that you run into problems.
Understand that I am not trying to persuade you - you are to deeply indoctrinated into this man-made dogma for me to change your mind. I am merely responding to you so that others that read the thread will see the flaws in your reasoning, and will see that every time you are challenged to support your position with Scripture, you cannot. In that way, I hope to prevent others from falling into the same error as you.
Spoken to WHOM?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.